Orlando

[Yaeger]

We're a smart country, we can figure this out and come up with a good solution.  The current state of affairs is not reasonable.

I agree, no amount of violence is ever reasonable, but that's no excuse to remove the rights of the people for the illusion of public safety.

Maybe what needs to be done doesn't involve government action at all, because there's nothing the government can do.

It's not removing the rights.  It's placing reasonable restrictions on them, which is allowed.  The illusion is that somehow we, as a society, need AR-15s.

Your interpretation of 'reasonable' doesn't support the definition of the word. You still haven't shown how 'reasonable' gun restrictions can stop events like these from happening. This gun control push is just a knee-jerk reaction from gun control supporters, their political puppets, and stoking the irrational fear of the public to exploit them.

[MrStash2000]

According to the FBI, (source at the bottom), there were 12,253 murders in the US in 2013 where a weapon was used. You'll notice that 2013 is a typical year, so we'll just use that for our data.

In 8,454 of these murders the weapon was a fire arm. Further, 285 of these murders used a rifle. Now, if you pull out your handy-dandy calculator, you'll notice that this accounts for about 3.37% of murders where a fire arm was used, or about 2.33% of all murders where a weapon was used.

For the sake of argument, let's go ahead and say that every single rifle used was an "assault rifle". Let's also say that any assault weapons ban in the US is 100% effective, meaning all assault rifles disappear and it is impossible for any new ones to enter the country. Additionally, we have to assume that the murderers who used assault rifles are now incapable of murdering anyone due to their lack of an assault rifle.

If these conditions sound reasonable to you, then congratulations! Push for that ban and maybe, just maybe, after a long legal battle you'll be able to prevent 2.33% of murders where weapons were used.

Source: https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2009-2013.xls

Edit: "Assault Rifle" is defined by what the media portrays an an assault rifle. Even though an Ar-15 isnt one.

[ShoulderThingThatGoesUp]

1. The restrictions proposed would not reduce violence. Restrictions passed by other countries have not changed existing violent crime trends. Restrictions in the United States have been substantially loosened over the past twenty years, and crime rates have continued to fall.
2. Confiscation of weapons is not possible in the United States. Compliance with the Australian confiscation was 19%. Compliance with recent registration requirements in New York was under 5%.
3. Violence could be substantially reduced by other means, such as a thorough reform of our criminal justice system.

I see you copy these points off any number of gun websites.  They are widely circulated as from a "study"  -- problem was that it was not in any peer reviewed journal of public health and has been widely discredited.  NEXT!!

http://www.snopes.com/harvard-flaw-review/

I looked over your link and I don't see how it addresses my points. What compliance rates can you source for the Australian confiscation effort and the New York registration effort?

If the AR-15 had been banned and all of them rounded up for scrap 10 years ago, I strongly suspect the people in Orlando would still be dead via gun shot wound.

Particularly because the shooter didn't use an AR-15. He used a Sig Sauer MCX and a 9mm Glock.

[Northwestie]

That's a reasonable question.  Thanks.   It's not the AR15 specifically, though it seems to be the gun of choice for these incidents.  Maybe assault weapon -- yes loosely defined -- is a better term.

This things are very easy to use and require a low skill threshold to inflict a lot of harm.  And add the large magazines available and there you go.

In polls something like 65% of the US says it would be fine to get rid of them, 89% say yes to tighter gun restrictions in general.  It's time. 

The against gun control arguments I hear are:

1) it won't do any good
2) it infringes on my rights
3) the old chestnut - if the gum'ment wants to take us over we can fight back (dear god!)
4) and the teenage Red Dawn fantasy of repelling foreign armies. (really??)

IMO - these are straw men.

[JLee]

The author also blames Muslims. That is the popular thing to do, it seems - however, 80% of terrorist attacks since 9/11 have been conducted by Americans. Right-wing extremist attacks are almost twice as frequent as Muslim!

Ummm, no, the author doesn't blame all Muslims - you are twisting his words.  He talks about a fraction of Islam:

I’ve lived too long in the Muslim world, and experienced the decency of Muslim communities, to believe that this is the essence of Islam. But I have seen too much of this suicidal violence for too long to believe that it has nothing to do with the puritanical, anti-gay, anti-transgender, anti-female, anti-religious-pluralism versions of Islam that are too often promoted by sources in the Arab world, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

First, I didn't say "all Muslims" - stop making shit up.

Second, you conveniently left the following paragraphs out:

The websites, social networks and mosques that promote these intolerant ideas can “light up” lost souls anywhere in the world. Until that stops, we’re just waiting around for the next Paris, Brussels, San Bernardino or Orlando.

And the only thing that can stop them is from the inside: a meaningful mass movement by Muslim governments, clergymen and citizens to delegitimize this behavior. It takes a village and only stops when the village clearly says, “No more!” And that has not happened at the scale and consistency it needs to happen.

He is quite clearly blaming Muslims without any mention of the other perpetrators of terrorism and mass shootings.

[Northwestie]

We're a smart country, we can figure this out and come up with a good solution.  The current state of affairs is not reasonable.

I agree, no amount of violence is ever reasonable, but that's no excuse to remove the rights of the people for the illusion of public safety.

Maybe what needs to be done doesn't involve government action at all, because there's nothing the government can do.

It's not removing the rights.  It's placing reasonable restrictions on them, which is allowed.  The illusion is that somehow we, as a society, need AR-15s.

Your interpretation of 'reasonable' doesn't support the definition of the word. You still haven't shown how 'reasonable' gun restrictions can stop events like these from happening. This gun control push is just a knee-jerk reaction from gun control supporters, their political puppets, and stoking the irrational fear of the public to exploit them.

Well, your panicked response could be classified as knee-jerk as well.

[Northwestie]

The author also blames Muslims. That is the popular thing to do, it seems - however, 80% of terrorist attacks since 9/11 have been conducted by Americans. Right-wing extremist attacks are almost twice as frequent as Muslim!

Ummm, no, the author doesn't blame all Muslims - you are twisting his words.  He talks about a fraction of Islam:

I’ve lived too long in the Muslim world, and experienced the decency of Muslim communities, to believe that this is the essence of Islam. But I have seen too much of this suicidal violence for too long to believe that it has nothing to do with the puritanical, anti-gay, anti-transgender, anti-female, anti-religious-pluralism versions of Islam that are too often promoted by sources in the Arab world, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

First, I didn't say "all Muslims" - stop making shit up.

Second, you conveniently left the following paragraphs out:

The websites, social networks and mosques that promote these intolerant ideas can “light up” lost souls anywhere in the world. Until that stops, we’re just waiting around for the next Paris, Brussels, San Bernardino or Orlando.

And the only thing that can stop them is from the inside: a meaningful mass movement by Muslim governments, clergymen and citizens to delegitimize this behavior. It takes a village and only stops when the village clearly says, “No more!” And that has not happened at the scale and consistency it needs to happen.

He is quite clearly blaming Muslims without any mention of the other perpetrators of terrorism and mass shootings.

Soooooo........if you agree that Friedman is referring to a small percentage of Islam and so are you --- what's the issue?

[JLee]

The author also blames Muslims. That is the popular thing to do, it seems - however, 80% of terrorist attacks since 9/11 have been conducted by Americans. Right-wing extremist attacks are almost twice as frequent as Muslim!

Ummm, no, the author doesn't blame all Muslims - you are twisting his words.  He talks about a fraction of Islam:

I’ve lived too long in the Muslim world, and experienced the decency of Muslim communities, to believe that this is the essence of Islam. But I have seen too much of this suicidal violence for too long to believe that it has nothing to do with the puritanical, anti-gay, anti-transgender, anti-female, anti-religious-pluralism versions of Islam that are too often promoted by sources in the Arab world, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

First, I didn't say "all Muslims" - stop making shit up.

Second, you conveniently left the following paragraphs out:

The websites, social networks and mosques that promote these intolerant ideas can “light up” lost souls anywhere in the world. Until that stops, we’re just waiting around for the next Paris, Brussels, San Bernardino or Orlando.

And the only thing that can stop them is from the inside: a meaningful mass movement by Muslim governments, clergymen and citizens to delegitimize this behavior. It takes a village and only stops when the village clearly says, “No more!” And that has not happened at the scale and consistency it needs to happen.

He is quite clearly blaming Muslims without any mention of the other perpetrators of terrorism and mass shootings.

Soooooo........if you agree that Friedman is referring to a small percentage of Islam and so are you --- what's the issue?

I already posted what the issue is.

That's a reasonable question.  Thanks.   It's not the AR15 specifically, though it seems to be the gun of choice for these incidents.  Maybe assault weapon -- yes loosely defined -- is a better term.

This things are very easy to use and require a low skill threshold to inflict a lot of harm.  And add the large magazines available and there you go.

In polls something like 65% of the US says it would be fine to get rid of them, 89% say yes to tighter gun restrictions in general.  It's time. 

The against gun control arguments I hear are:

1) it won't do any good
2) it infringes on my rights
3) the old chestnut - if the gum'ment wants to take us over we can fight back (dear god!)
4) and the teenage Red Dawn fantasy of repelling foreign armies. (really??)

IMO - these are straw men.

Mateen did not use an AR-15. Assault weapon is a term, but irrelevant. If you are going to discuss matters of such sensitivity you would be best served to use appropriate terminology.

Tighter restrictions are fine, but your proposals are frankly outrageous. I understand that it's easy to just take stuff away from other people when it don't impact your own personal life at all, but that does not mean it's the right thing to do.

It's saddening that a tragedy like this primarily serves as a way for people to further their own political agendas, rather than looking into the root of the actual problem.

[Northwestie]

OK - other than "I want to have one for my hobby"  are there any other arguments?

I'm not going to convince you  - and you me.  But the arguments that we have to put up with such high levels of gun violence in this country and mass killings because it might infringe on someone's hobby is morally hollow.  Gotta run and catch a plane.  Cheers.

[JLee]

OK - other than "I want to have one for my hobby"  are there any other arguments?

I'm not going to convince you  - and you me.  But the arguments that we have to but up with such high levels of gun violence in this country and mass killings because it might infringe on someone's hobby is morally hollow.  Gotta run and catch a plane.  Cheers.

The vast majority of gun violence is from handguns, yet you proclaim a yearning desire to ban AR15's.  Who's morally hollow here?

[dycker1978]

For everyone saying that murder rates are going down.  That is good, but we are talking about mass shootings, which according to the FBI are going up(https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjAyNHNjK3NAhVH4YMKHbFlD-AQFggcMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fbi.gov%2Fabout-us%2Foffice-of-partner-engagement%2Factive-shooter-incidents%2Fa-study-of-active-shooter-incidents-in-the-u.s.-2000-2013&usg=AFQjCNG8_AGOyEzhFGAzBVMsK9K--DJpiw&sig2=t5RipNvW93H4V2z_SUJztA)

Handguns appear to be the leading weapon used in mass shootings, maybe there needs to be a look at handguns and restrictions on them?

[ShoulderThingThatGoesUp]

The against gun control arguments I hear are:

1) it won't do any good
2) it infringes on my rights
3) the old chestnut - if the gum'ment wants to take us over we can fight back (dear god!)
4) and the teenage Red Dawn fantasy of repelling foreign armies. (really??)

IMO - these are straw men.

Are you trolling? That is not what a straw man argument is. Strawmanning means attributing an argument to your opponent, then arguing against that, instead of what they're actually saying. So, that teenage Red Dawn thing you keep bringing up - that's a straw man, because nobody in here is saying we can defeat some imaginary invading army with civilian arms.

I really would like to know why you think the restrictions you propose would work to reduce violence. I am happy to admit that restricting guns is a reasonable thing to consider when guns are used to commit violent crimes. So far, having considered it, I haven't found arguments in favor of gun control to be persuasive.

You seem totally incapable of imagining that there is a valid argument on the other side.

OK - other than "I want to have one for my hobby"  are there any other arguments?

I'm not going to convince you  - and you me.  But the arguments that we have to put up with such high levels of gun violence in this country and mass killings because it might infringe on someone's hobby is morally hollow.  Gotta run and catch a plane.  Cheers.

Who are you responding to with the hobby thing?

[ShoulderThingThatGoesUp]

For everyone saying that murder rates are going down.  That is good, but we are talking about mass shootings, which according to the FBI are going up(https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjAyNHNjK3NAhVH4YMKHbFlD-AQFggcMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fbi.gov%2Fabout-us%2Foffice-of-partner-engagement%2Factive-shooter-incidents%2Fa-study-of-active-shooter-incidents-in-the-u.s.-2000-2013&usg=AFQjCNG8_AGOyEzhFGAzBVMsK9K--DJpiw&sig2=t5RipNvW93H4V2z_SUJztA)

Handguns appear to be the leading weapon used in mass shootings, maybe there needs to be a look at handguns and restrictions on them?

Maybe! Nothing so far has worked. What suggestions do you have?

[Midwest]

For everyone saying that murder rates are going down.  That is good, but we are talking about mass shootings, which according to the FBI are going up(https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjAyNHNjK3NAhVH4YMKHbFlD-AQFggcMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fbi.gov%2Fabout-us%2Foffice-of-partner-engagement%2Factive-shooter-incidents%2Fa-study-of-active-shooter-incidents-in-the-u.s.-2000-2013&usg=AFQjCNG8_AGOyEzhFGAzBVMsK9K--DJpiw&sig2=t5RipNvW93H4V2z_SUJztA)

Handguns appear to be the leading weapon used in mass shootings, maybe there needs to be a look at handguns and restrictions on them?

Dycker - I may not agree with you on handgun restrictions (don't know the specifics), but THANK YOU for having an response besides "ban the assault rifles" that commit a small % of murders.

[JLee]

For everyone saying that murder rates are going down.  That is good, but we are talking about mass shootings, which according to the FBI are going up(https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjAyNHNjK3NAhVH4YMKHbFlD-AQFggcMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fbi.gov%2Fabout-us%2Foffice-of-partner-engagement%2Factive-shooter-incidents%2Fa-study-of-active-shooter-incidents-in-the-u.s.-2000-2013&usg=AFQjCNG8_AGOyEzhFGAzBVMsK9K--DJpiw&sig2=t5RipNvW93H4V2z_SUJztA)

Handguns appear to be the leading weapon used in mass shootings, maybe there needs to be a look at handguns and restrictions on them?

Dycker - I don't agree with you on banning handguns, but THANK YOU for having an response besides "ban the assault rifles" that commit a small % of murders.

To be fair, 'restrictions on' is different than 'banning.'

[Midwest]

For everyone saying that murder rates are going down.  That is good, but we are talking about mass shootings, which according to the FBI are going up(https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjAyNHNjK3NAhVH4YMKHbFlD-AQFggcMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fbi.gov%2Fabout-us%2Foffice-of-partner-engagement%2Factive-shooter-incidents%2Fa-study-of-active-shooter-incidents-in-the-u.s.-2000-2013&usg=AFQjCNG8_AGOyEzhFGAzBVMsK9K--DJpiw&sig2=t5RipNvW93H4V2z_SUJztA)

Handguns appear to be the leading weapon used in mass shootings, maybe there needs to be a look at handguns and restrictions on them?

Dycker - I don't agree with you on banning handguns, but THANK YOU for having an response besides "ban the assault rifles" that commit a small % of murders.

To be fair, 'restrictions on' is different than 'banning.'

  I just edited that to be more clear.  I was so excited about a rational response my hands got ahead of my hands.

[MoonShadow]

Handguns appear to be the leading weapon used in mass shootings, maybe there needs to be a look at handguns and restrictions on them?

Perhaps.  What would you propose that doesn't already exist?

[dycker1978]

For everyone saying that murder rates are going down.  That is good, but we are talking about mass shootings, which according to the FBI are going up(https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjAyNHNjK3NAhVH4YMKHbFlD-AQFggcMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fbi.gov%2Fabout-us%2Foffice-of-partner-engagement%2Factive-shooter-incidents%2Fa-study-of-active-shooter-incidents-in-the-u.s.-2000-2013&usg=AFQjCNG8_AGOyEzhFGAzBVMsK9K--DJpiw&sig2=t5RipNvW93H4V2z_SUJztA)

Handguns appear to be the leading weapon used in mass shootings, maybe there needs to be a look at handguns and restrictions on them?

Dycker - I may not agree with you on handgun restrictions (don't know the specifics), but THANK YOU for having an response besides "ban the assault rifles" that commit a small % of murders.

I am not sure what the solution is, but the conversation needs to happen.  I think the stat I saw was 13000 murders a year with weapons, one every 37 minutes or something like that...   Just turning a blind eye and saying what we have works is not true. 

Again I have said, and will say again, I hunt.  I own rifles.  I have family that competitively shoots hand guns.  I do no think an outright ban is what needs to happen.  We just need better controls.

[MoonShadow]

For everyone saying that murder rates are going down.  That is good, but we are talking about mass shootings, which according to the FBI are going up(https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjAyNHNjK3NAhVH4YMKHbFlD-AQFggcMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fbi.gov%2Fabout-us%2Foffice-of-partner-engagement%2Factive-shooter-incidents%2Fa-study-of-active-shooter-incidents-in-the-u.s.-2000-2013&usg=AFQjCNG8_AGOyEzhFGAzBVMsK9K--DJpiw&sig2=t5RipNvW93H4V2z_SUJztA)

Handguns appear to be the leading weapon used in mass shootings, maybe there needs to be a look at handguns and restrictions on them?

Dycker - I may not agree with you on handgun restrictions (don't know the specifics), but THANK YOU for having an response besides "ban the assault rifles" that commit a small % of murders.

I am not sure what the solution is, but the conversation needs to happen.  I think the stat I saw was 13000 murders a year with weapons, one every 37 minutes or something like that...   Just turning a blind eye and saying what we have works is not true. 

Again I have said, and will say again, I hunt.  I own rifles.  I have family that competitively shoots hand guns.  I do no think an outright ban is what needs to happen. We just need better controls.

Again, what would you propose?  We are having a conversation right now.  It's not like we haven't had this exact conversation repeatedly, after every time a nutter pops.

[JLee]

For everyone saying that murder rates are going down.  That is good, but we are talking about mass shootings, which according to the FBI are going up(https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjAyNHNjK3NAhVH4YMKHbFlD-AQFggcMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fbi.gov%2Fabout-us%2Foffice-of-partner-engagement%2Factive-shooter-incidents%2Fa-study-of-active-shooter-incidents-in-the-u.s.-2000-2013&usg=AFQjCNG8_AGOyEzhFGAzBVMsK9K--DJpiw&sig2=t5RipNvW93H4V2z_SUJztA)

Handguns appear to be the leading weapon used in mass shootings, maybe there needs to be a look at handguns and restrictions on them?

Dycker - I may not agree with you on handgun restrictions (don't know the specifics), but THANK YOU for having an response besides "ban the assault rifles" that commit a small % of murders.

I am not sure what the solution is, but the conversation needs to happen.  I think the stat I saw was 13000 murders a year with weapons, one every 37 minutes or something like that...   Just turning a blind eye and saying what we have works is not true. 

Again I have said, and will say again, I hunt.  I own rifles.  I have family that competitively shoots hand guns.  I do no think an outright ban is what needs to happen.  We just need better controls.

I don't disagree, but I do want to point out that Mateen managed to get through enough security screening (including a psychological test/evaluation) to be an armed security guard.

[Yaeger]

I am not sure what the solution is, but the conversation needs to happen.  I think the stat I saw was 13000 murders a year with weapons, one every 37 minutes or something like that...   Just turning a blind eye and saying what we have works is not true. 

Again I have said, and will say again, I hunt.  I own rifles.  I have family that competitively shoots hand guns.  I do no think an outright ban is what needs to happen.  We just need better controls.

The conversation has happened, multiple times. We are fine with gun controls being as they are, it's society that needs to continue its change. More government restrictions won't solve anything and aren't the answer.

[dycker1978]

For everyone saying that murder rates are going down.  That is good, but we are talking about mass shootings, which according to the FBI are going up(https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjAyNHNjK3NAhVH4YMKHbFlD-AQFggcMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fbi.gov%2Fabout-us%2Foffice-of-partner-engagement%2Factive-shooter-incidents%2Fa-study-of-active-shooter-incidents-in-the-u.s.-2000-2013&usg=AFQjCNG8_AGOyEzhFGAzBVMsK9K--DJpiw&sig2=t5RipNvW93H4V2z_SUJztA)

Handguns appear to be the leading weapon used in mass shootings, maybe there needs to be a look at handguns and restrictions on them?

Dycker - I may not agree with you on handgun restrictions (don't know the specifics), but THANK YOU for having an response besides "ban the assault rifles" that commit a small % of murders.

I am not sure what the solution is, but the conversation needs to happen.  I think the stat I saw was 13000 murders a year with weapons, one every 37 minutes or something like that...   Just turning a blind eye and saying what we have works is not true. 

Again I have said, and will say again, I hunt.  I own rifles.  I have family that competitively shoots hand guns.  I do no think an outright ban is what needs to happen. We just need better controls.

Again, what would you propose?  We are having a conversation right now.  It's not like we haven't had this exact conversation repeatedly, after every time a nutter pops.

Well I am Canadian, as you can see.  Here we allow handguns, but they are quite controlled.  Meaning you have to have them locked in a gun safe with trigger locks on them, unless you are transporting them to a shooting event.  Then there is some simple paperwork to fill out.

With long guns, there is less control, but still some.  You can have a clip that holds no more then 5 rounds.  You have to get a criminal record check to purchase a gun, and the ammo for it(this is along with what we call a PAL, or purchase and acquisition license).   When at home, they must be locked in a gun safe.  they can be transported for hunting or targeting without the use of and addition paperwork.

As far as the handguns go, this may not work in the US?  The PAL has made it impossible to purchase ammo, even if you get the gun through questionable means.

Are these the best solution?  That is a question I would pose to you.  Maybe some hybrid system would work.

[dycker1978]

For everyone saying that murder rates are going down.  That is good, but we are talking about mass shootings, which according to the FBI are going up(https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjAyNHNjK3NAhVH4YMKHbFlD-AQFggcMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fbi.gov%2Fabout-us%2Foffice-of-partner-engagement%2Factive-shooter-incidents%2Fa-study-of-active-shooter-incidents-in-the-u.s.-2000-2013&usg=AFQjCNG8_AGOyEzhFGAzBVMsK9K--DJpiw&sig2=t5RipNvW93H4V2z_SUJztA)

Handguns appear to be the leading weapon used in mass shootings, maybe there needs to be a look at handguns and restrictions on them?

Dycker - I may not agree with you on handgun restrictions (don't know the specifics), but THANK YOU for having an response besides "ban the assault rifles" that commit a small % of murders.

I am not sure what the solution is, but the conversation needs to happen.  I think the stat I saw was 13000 murders a year with weapons, one every 37 minutes or something like that...   Just turning a blind eye and saying what we have works is not true. 

Again I have said, and will say again, I hunt.  I own rifles.  I have family that competitively shoots hand guns.  I do no think an outright ban is what needs to happen.  We just need better controls.

I don't disagree, but I do want to point out that Mateen managed to get through enough security screening (including a psychological test/evaluation) to be an armed security guard.

No system will ever be perfect.  I think that we, as society, needs to do the best we can to limit the chances of this happening. 

[JLee]

For everyone saying that murder rates are going down.  That is good, but we are talking about mass shootings, which according to the FBI are going up(https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjAyNHNjK3NAhVH4YMKHbFlD-AQFggcMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fbi.gov%2Fabout-us%2Foffice-of-partner-engagement%2Factive-shooter-incidents%2Fa-study-of-active-shooter-incidents-in-the-u.s.-2000-2013&usg=AFQjCNG8_AGOyEzhFGAzBVMsK9K--DJpiw&sig2=t5RipNvW93H4V2z_SUJztA)

Handguns appear to be the leading weapon used in mass shootings, maybe there needs to be a look at handguns and restrictions on them?

Dycker - I may not agree with you on handgun restrictions (don't know the specifics), but THANK YOU for having an response besides "ban the assault rifles" that commit a small % of murders.

I am not sure what the solution is, but the conversation needs to happen.  I think the stat I saw was 13000 murders a year with weapons, one every 37 minutes or something like that...   Just turning a blind eye and saying what we have works is not true. 

Again I have said, and will say again, I hunt.  I own rifles.  I have family that competitively shoots hand guns.  I do no think an outright ban is what needs to happen.  We just need better controls.

I don't disagree, but I do want to point out that Mateen managed to get through enough security screening (including a psychological test/evaluation) to be an armed security guard.

No system will ever be perfect.  I think that we, as society, needs to do the best we can to limit the chances of this happening.

Eliminating racism, homophobia, misogyny, and religious extremism (in short, hatred) from society would go a long ways towards that. Unfortunately, I have no answer for that problem either. :(

[ShoulderThingThatGoesUp]

For everyone saying that murder rates are going down.  That is good, but we are talking about mass shootings, which according to the FBI are going up(https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjAyNHNjK3NAhVH4YMKHbFlD-AQFggcMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fbi.gov%2Fabout-us%2Foffice-of-partner-engagement%2Factive-shooter-incidents%2Fa-study-of-active-shooter-incidents-in-the-u.s.-2000-2013&usg=AFQjCNG8_AGOyEzhFGAzBVMsK9K--DJpiw&sig2=t5RipNvW93H4V2z_SUJztA)

Handguns appear to be the leading weapon used in mass shootings, maybe there needs to be a look at handguns and restrictions on them?

Dycker - I may not agree with you on handgun restrictions (don't know the specifics), but THANK YOU for having an response besides "ban the assault rifles" that commit a small % of murders.

I am not sure what the solution is, but the conversation needs to happen.  I think the stat I saw was 13000 murders a year with weapons, one every 37 minutes or something like that...   Just turning a blind eye and saying what we have works is not true. 

Again I have said, and will say again, I hunt.  I own rifles.  I have family that competitively shoots hand guns.  I do no think an outright ban is what needs to happen. We just need better controls.

Again, what would you propose?  We are having a conversation right now.  It's not like we haven't had this exact conversation repeatedly, after every time a nutter pops.

Well I am Canadian, as you can see.  Here we allow handguns, but they are quite controlled.  Meaning you have to have them locked in a gun safe with trigger locks on them, unless you are transporting them to a shooting event.  Then there is some simple paperwork to fill out.

With long guns, there is less control, but still some.  You can have a clip that holds no more then 5 rounds.  You have to get a criminal record check to purchase a gun, and the ammo for it(this is along with what we call a PAL, or purchase and acquisition license).   When at home, they must be locked in a gun safe.  they can be transported for hunting or targeting without the use of and addition paperwork.

As far as the handguns go, this may not work in the US?  The PAL has made it impossible to purchase ammo, even if you get the gun through questionable means.

Are these the best solution?  That is a question I would pose to you.  Maybe some hybrid system would work.

I guess I'm not sure how you get from here to there.

Additionally, as we've discussed, the USA has generally been loosening restrictions on handguns and the murder rate has fallen concurrently, so I'm not sure it would have any effect - I'm sure you have gangsters killing each other in Canada too. Ammunition can easily be reloaded at home. And millions of people carry every day without causing problems.

[forummm]

To the anti-gunners who say the second amendment was only meant for muskets, not "semi-auto death machines"... those "muskets" were the most advanced firearms of the day. Trying to prevent Americans from owning AR-15s in 2016 is the equivalent of trying to prevent Americans from owning Kentucky Rifles in 1776.

Then clearly you believe that every man, woman, and child should have their own nuclear bombs, right? That's the most advanced weapon today.

[dycker1978]

For everyone saying that murder rates are going down.  That is good, but we are talking about mass shootings, which according to the FBI are going up(https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjAyNHNjK3NAhVH4YMKHbFlD-AQFggcMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fbi.gov%2Fabout-us%2Foffice-of-partner-engagement%2Factive-shooter-incidents%2Fa-study-of-active-shooter-incidents-in-the-u.s.-2000-2013&usg=AFQjCNG8_AGOyEzhFGAzBVMsK9K--DJpiw&sig2=t5RipNvW93H4V2z_SUJztA)

Handguns appear to be the leading weapon used in mass shootings, maybe there needs to be a look at handguns and restrictions on them?

Dycker - I may not agree with you on handgun restrictions (don't know the specifics), but THANK YOU for having an response besides "ban the assault rifles" that commit a small % of murders.

I am not sure what the solution is, but the conversation needs to happen.  I think the stat I saw was 13000 murders a year with weapons, one every 37 minutes or something like that...   Just turning a blind eye and saying what we have works is not true. 

Again I have said, and will say again, I hunt.  I own rifles.  I have family that competitively shoots hand guns.  I do no think an outright ban is what needs to happen.  We just need better controls.

I don't disagree, but I do want to point out that Mateen managed to get through enough security screening (including a psychological test/evaluation) to be an armed security guard.

No system will ever be perfect.  I think that we, as society, needs to do the best we can to limit the chances of this happening.

Eliminating racism, homophobia, misogyny, and religious extremism (in short, hatred) from society would go a long ways towards that. Unfortunately, I have no answer for that problem either. :(

That is the true issue here that seems to be forgotten.  This was a hate crime that was done because he saw a gay couple kiss in front of his son.

If this was truly an ISIL terror attack they probably would have attacked Disney, but he attacked a gay club on Latino night.

This was a hate crime focused on the LGBT+ community.

[dycker1978]

For everyone saying that murder rates are going down.  That is good, but we are talking about mass shootings, which according to the FBI are going up(https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjAyNHNjK3NAhVH4YMKHbFlD-AQFggcMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fbi.gov%2Fabout-us%2Foffice-of-partner-engagement%2Factive-shooter-incidents%2Fa-study-of-active-shooter-incidents-in-the-u.s.-2000-2013&usg=AFQjCNG8_AGOyEzhFGAzBVMsK9K--DJpiw&sig2=t5RipNvW93H4V2z_SUJztA)

Handguns appear to be the leading weapon used in mass shootings, maybe there needs to be a look at handguns and restrictions on them?

Dycker - I may not agree with you on handgun restrictions (don't know the specifics), but THANK YOU for having an response besides "ban the assault rifles" that commit a small % of murders.

I am not sure what the solution is, but the conversation needs to happen.  I think the stat I saw was 13000 murders a year with weapons, one every 37 minutes or something like that...   Just turning a blind eye and saying what we have works is not true. 

Again I have said, and will say again, I hunt.  I own rifles.  I have family that competitively shoots hand guns.  I do no think an outright ban is what needs to happen. We just need better controls.

Again, what would you propose?  We are having a conversation right now.  It's not like we haven't had this exact conversation repeatedly, after every time a nutter pops.

Well I am Canadian, as you can see.  Here we allow handguns, but they are quite controlled.  Meaning you have to have them locked in a gun safe with trigger locks on them, unless you are transporting them to a shooting event.  Then there is some simple paperwork to fill out.

With long guns, there is less control, but still some.  You can have a clip that holds no more then 5 rounds.  You have to get a criminal record check to purchase a gun, and the ammo for it(this is along with what we call a PAL, or purchase and acquisition license).   When at home, they must be locked in a gun safe.  they can be transported for hunting or targeting without the use of and addition paperwork.

As far as the handguns go, this may not work in the US?  The PAL has made it impossible to purchase ammo, even if you get the gun through questionable means.

Are these the best solution?  That is a question I would pose to you.  Maybe some hybrid system would work.

I guess I'm not sure how you get from here to there.

Additionally, as we've discussed, the USA has generally been loosening restrictions on handguns and the murder rate has fallen concurrently, so I'm not sure it would have any effect - I'm sure you have gangsters killing each other in Canada too. Ammunition can easily be reloaded at home. And millions of people carry every day without causing problems.

Again, murder rate down but mass shooting up according to the FBI.  They seem to be two separate categories.

Although you can reload from home here, black power is one of the controlled items in PAL I believe.

[JLee]

For everyone saying that murder rates are going down.  That is good, but we are talking about mass shootings, which according to the FBI are going up(https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjAyNHNjK3NAhVH4YMKHbFlD-AQFggcMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fbi.gov%2Fabout-us%2Foffice-of-partner-engagement%2Factive-shooter-incidents%2Fa-study-of-active-shooter-incidents-in-the-u.s.-2000-2013&usg=AFQjCNG8_AGOyEzhFGAzBVMsK9K--DJpiw&sig2=t5RipNvW93H4V2z_SUJztA)

Handguns appear to be the leading weapon used in mass shootings, maybe there needs to be a look at handguns and restrictions on them?

Dycker - I may not agree with you on handgun restrictions (don't know the specifics), but THANK YOU for having an response besides "ban the assault rifles" that commit a small % of murders.

I am not sure what the solution is, but the conversation needs to happen.  I think the stat I saw was 13000 murders a year with weapons, one every 37 minutes or something like that...   Just turning a blind eye and saying what we have works is not true. 

Again I have said, and will say again, I hunt.  I own rifles.  I have family that competitively shoots hand guns.  I do no think an outright ban is what needs to happen.  We just need better controls.

I don't disagree, but I do want to point out that Mateen managed to get through enough security screening (including a psychological test/evaluation) to be an armed security guard.

No system will ever be perfect.  I think that we, as society, needs to do the best we can to limit the chances of this happening.

Eliminating racism, homophobia, misogyny, and religious extremism (in short, hatred) from society would go a long ways towards that. Unfortunately, I have no answer for that problem either. :(

That is the true issue here that seems to be forgotten.  This was a hate crime that was done because he saw a gay couple kiss in front of his son.

If this was truly an ISIL terror attack they probably would have attacked Disney, but he attacked a gay club on Latino night.

This was a hate crime focused on the LGBT+ community.

Yes.  It's saddening how so many people are using this as a catalyst for a political agenda instead of focusing on the true root of the problem.

[forummm]

The anti gun control arguments seem to be (no particular order):
1) It's too hard to do anything because there are an insane amount of guns out there and a lot of gun owners won't comply with a new law
2) The specific gun control thing you're proposing wouldn't have prevented (cherry picks one from the large list of recent mass shootings)
3) 2nd Amendment means you can have any gun you want
4) People are going to murder the same people anyway--just with another weapon
5) Murder rates are going down anyway
6) It might cost something to do gun control
7) The government is going to take over if we don't all have guns
8) Some spin discounting all the other countries with lots of gun control and low gun violence rates
9) Gun owners' enjoyment of their guns should be weighed against (more favorably?) the enjoyment of other people in continuing to live

I may be forgetting something.

What I don't see is anyone on the pro-gun side admitting that we have a massive problem in the country. Let alone making constructive suggestions about what to do about it. People are dying every day, frequently due to no fault of their own. Is there anything the pro-gun crowd would do about that? Anything?

[JLee]

The anti gun control arguments seem to be (no particular order):
1) It's too hard to do anything because there are an insane amount of guns out there and a lot of gun owners won't comply with a new law
2) The specific gun control thing you're proposing wouldn't have prevented (cherry picks one from the large list of recent mass shootings)
3) 2nd Amendment means you can have any gun you want
4) People are going to murder the same people anyway--just with another weapon
5) Murder rates are going down anyway
6) It might cost something to do gun control
7) The government is going to take over if we don't all have guns
8) Some spin discounting all the other countries with lots of gun control and low gun violence rates
9) Gun owners' enjoyment of their guns should be weighed against (more favorably?) the enjoyment of other people in continuing to live

I may be forgetting something.

What I don't see is anyone on the pro-gun side admitting that we have a massive problem in the country. Let alone making constructive suggestions about what to do about it. People are dying every day, frequently due to no fault of their own. Is there anything the pro-gun crowd would do about that? Anything?

Look in the thread about guns, which has well over 1300 responses now.

[ShoulderThingThatGoesUp]

The anti gun control arguments seem to be (no particular order):
1) It's too hard to do anything because there are an insane amount of guns out there and a lot of gun owners won't comply with a new law
2) The specific gun control thing you're proposing wouldn't have prevented (cherry picks one from the large list of recent mass shootings)
3) 2nd Amendment means you can have any gun you want
4) People are going to murder the same people anyway--just with another weapon
5) Murder rates are going down anyway
6) It might cost something to do gun control
7) The government is going to take over if we don't all have guns
8) Some spin discounting all the other countries with lots of gun control and low gun violence rates
9) Gun owners' enjoyment of their guns should be weighed against (more favorably?) the enjoyment of other people in continuing to live

I may be forgetting something.

What I don't see is anyone on the pro-gun side admitting that we have a massive problem in the country. Let alone making constructive suggestions about what to do about it. People are dying every day, frequently due to no fault of their own. Is there anything the pro-gun crowd would do about that? Anything?

We absolutely have a rate of violence out of line with other first world nations. I do not believe gun control would help with that. I have already suggested ending the War on Drugs as a constructive step. Further suggestions:
1. Make schools less violent. Inner city schools are downright dangerous, and these are places the government controls directly. Children growing up in a culture of violence can be expected to be violent young adults.
2. Stop interfering in Middle Eastern affairs. The Taliban are at their post-2001 peak, so what are we even accomplishing? This would remove the motivation of some killers, though I think a genuine sick puppy like Omar Mateen would have come up with something anyways.
3. Reduce police violence. People killed by police count in these numbers, and their lives matter. Sometimes bad things are unavoidable, but it's clear that the government itself is a major contributor to violence. Being stopped-and-frisked and manhandled by police regularly will make people, especially young men, angry, and angry people are where violence comes from.

[Midwest]

The anti gun control arguments seem to be (no particular order):
1) It's too hard to do anything because there are an insane amount of guns out there and a lot of gun owners won't comply with a new law
2) The specific gun control thing you're proposing wouldn't have prevented (cherry picks one from the large list of recent mass shootings)
3) 2nd Amendment means you can have any gun you want
4) People are going to murder the same people anyway--just with another weapon
5) Murder rates are going down anyway
6) It might cost something to do gun control
7) The government is going to take over if we don't all have guns
8) Some spin discounting all the other countries with lots of gun control and low gun violence rates
9) Gun owners' enjoyment of their guns should be weighed against (more favorably?) the enjoyment of other people in continuing to live

I may be forgetting something.

What I don't see is anyone on the pro-gun side admitting that we have a massive problem in the country. Let alone making constructive suggestions about what to do about it. People are dying every day, frequently due to no fault of their own. Is there anything the pro-gun crowd would do about that? Anything?

1) Since much of the crime is drug related, legalize marijuana
2) Since many of the drugs are imported from Mexico - Get control of the Mexican border.
3) Treat the hard drug users in our country to get them OFF of drugs
4) Beef up and/or enforce laws against straw man sellers
5) Crucify violent felons caught with guns.

[Chris22]

What I don't see is anyone on the pro-gun side admitting that we have a massive problem in the country.

Because, frankly, I don't really believe we do.

Ignoring accidents and suicide, we have three rough classifications of issues:

1.  We have mentally ill or otherwise disturbed people that make infrequent but highly publicized mass shootings.

2.  We have lots of gang-related murders and collateral damage in underprivileged urban areas

3.  We have a small number of everything else (spousal killing, armed robbery, etc)

When you look at those three groupings, each has an underlying cause that is basically unrelated to the guns themselves.  It really seems as though almost anything you do through gun control is simply going to cause more hoops for legal gun owners to jump through while doing little to fix 1 and 2 above, and MAYBE alleviating number 3 a little bit. 

[forummm]

Look in the thread about guns, which has well over 1300 responses now.

Let's say I don't have time to read 1300 angry responses. Care to summarize it for me?

1) Since much of the crime is drug related, legalize marijuana
2) Since many of the drugs are imported from Mexico - Get control of the Mexican border.
3) Treat the hard drug users in our country to get them OFF of drugs
4) Beef up and/or enforce laws against straw man sellers
5) Crucify violent felons caught with guns.

#2 seems about as hard as some of the more restrictive gun control proposals.
#5--I am picturing actual crosses.

[JLee]

Look in the thread about guns, which has well over 1300 responses now.

Let's say I don't have time to read 1300 angry responses. Care to summarize it for me?

1) Since much of the crime is drug related, legalize marijuana
2) Since many of the drugs are imported from Mexico - Get control of the Mexican border.
3) Treat the hard drug users in our country to get them OFF of drugs
4) Beef up and/or enforce laws against straw man sellers
5) Crucify violent felons caught with guns.

#2 seems about as hard as some of the more restrictive gun control proposals.
#5--I am picturing actual crosses.

Yet you have time to complain about a lack of gun control proposals presented in this thread - a thread created about a hate crime, not about guns?

[Midwest]

Look in the thread about guns, which has well over 1300 responses now.

Let's say I don't have time to read 1300 angry responses. Care to summarize it for me?

1) Since much of the crime is drug related, legalize marijuana
2) Since many of the drugs are imported from Mexico - Get control of the Mexican border.
3) Treat the hard drug users in our country to get them OFF of drugs
4) Beef up and/or enforce laws against straw man sellers
5) Crucify violent felons caught with guns.

#2 seems about as hard as some of the more restrictive gun control proposals.
#5--I am picturing actual crosses.

With regard to number 2 - If you legalize marijuana, cartels lose a source of revenue and power which helps with the southern border.  You implement some sort of plan related to illegal immigrant already here.  Once you determine who gets to stay, you heighten enforcement against people employing those parties who were told to leave.  We'll start w/that .

With regard to #5, so am I ; ).

[dycker1978]

What I don't see is anyone on the pro-gun side admitting that we have a massive problem in the country.

Because, frankly, I don't really believe we do.

Ignoring accidents and suicide, we have three rough classifications of issues:

1.  We have mentally ill or otherwise disturbed people that make infrequent but highly publicized mass shootings.

2.  We have lots of gang-related murders and collateral damage in underprivileged urban areas

3.  We have a small number of everything else (spousal killing, armed robbery, etc)

When you look at those three groupings, each has an underlying cause that is basically unrelated to the guns themselves.  It really seems as though almost anything you do through gun control is simply going to cause more hoops for legal gun owners to jump through while doing little to fix 1 and 2 above, and MAYBE alleviating number 3 a little bit.

Infrequent?  There have been 182 in the US in 2016.  6 since the incident we speak of here. 

https://www.massshootingtracker.org/data

[forummm]

What I don't see is anyone on the pro-gun side admitting that we have a massive problem in the country.

Because, frankly, I don't really believe we do.

Ignoring accidents and suicide, we have three rough classifications of issues:

1.  We have mentally ill or otherwise disturbed people that make infrequent but highly publicized mass shootings.

2.  We have lots of gang-related murders and collateral damage in underprivileged urban areas

3.  We have a small number of everything else (spousal killing, armed robbery, etc)

When you look at those three groupings, each has an underlying cause that is basically unrelated to the guns themselves.  It really seems as though almost anything you do through gun control is simply going to cause more hoops for legal gun owners to jump through while doing little to fix 1 and 2 above, and MAYBE alleviating number 3 a little bit. 

Why should we ignore accidents? Your gun is more likely to shoot you or someone in your household or someone benign (like a kid's friend, etc) than it is to successfully protect you from some home invader.

And why ignore suicide? There are a number of studies of people who tried to kill themselves and the attempt failed and the person is later very glad that it did (after the episode of depression passes). With a gun, it's too easy to do when you're in that dark place. And it's too hard to save you if you pull the trigger.

And it does seem like you can do something for each of the 3 categories you do mention. No one is claiming you can fix all those problems perfectly with just gun control. But I believe it could help (even if it is unpopular with some people). And I totally agree that fixing many of the underlying problems would help--perhaps much more than gun control.

[forummm]

Look in the thread about guns, which has well over 1300 responses now.

Let's say I don't have time to read 1300 angry responses. Care to summarize it for me?

1) Since much of the crime is drug related, legalize marijuana
2) Since many of the drugs are imported from Mexico - Get control of the Mexican border.
3) Treat the hard drug users in our country to get them OFF of drugs
4) Beef up and/or enforce laws against straw man sellers
5) Crucify violent felons caught with guns.

#2 seems about as hard as some of the more restrictive gun control proposals.
#5--I am picturing actual crosses.

Yet you have time to complain about a lack of gun control proposals presented in this thread - a thread created about a hate crime, not about guns?

Over 100 people were shot with guns. Seems like guns is an issue here. This is a much shorter thread that I actually did have a chance to read.

[Chris22]

What I don't see is anyone on the pro-gun side admitting that we have a massive problem in the country.

Because, frankly, I don't really believe we do.

Ignoring accidents and suicide, we have three rough classifications of issues:

1.  We have mentally ill or otherwise disturbed people that make infrequent but highly publicized mass shootings.

2.  We have lots of gang-related murders and collateral damage in underprivileged urban areas

3.  We have a small number of everything else (spousal killing, armed robbery, etc)

When you look at those three groupings, each has an underlying cause that is basically unrelated to the guns themselves.  It really seems as though almost anything you do through gun control is simply going to cause more hoops for legal gun owners to jump through while doing little to fix 1 and 2 above, and MAYBE alleviating number 3 a little bit.

Infrequent?  There have been 182 in the US in 2016.  6 since the incident we speak of here. 

https://www.massshootingtracker.org/data

If you look at the list, LOTS of the stuff counted in category 1 is really a better fit in category 2, just on a slightly larger scale.  The underlying cause is the same. 

[Yaeger]

To the anti-gunners who say the second amendment was only meant for muskets, not "semi-auto death machines"... those "muskets" were the most advanced firearms of the day. Trying to prevent Americans from owning AR-15s in 2016 is the equivalent of trying to prevent Americans from owning Kentucky Rifles in 1776.

Then clearly you believe that every man, woman, and child should have their own nuclear bombs, right? That's the most advanced weapon today.

Yes, if they could be used as discriminate weapons. However, they can't. The same argument can be made for landmines, automatic weapons, RPGs, bazookas, and other non-discriminate weaponry. The argument isn't because 'they're too dangerous', it's that they're non-selective.

However, there is an argument that these things are required by some of populace in relation upholding the ideals of the 2nd Amendment to counter the increasing capabilities of the government in a worst case scenario.

[MoonShadow]

What I don't see is anyone on the pro-gun side admitting that we have a massive problem in the country.

Because, frankly, I don't really believe we do.

Ignoring accidents and suicide, we have three rough classifications of issues:

1.  We have mentally ill or otherwise disturbed people that make infrequent but highly publicized mass shootings.

2.  We have lots of gang-related murders and collateral damage in underprivileged urban areas

3.  We have a small number of everything else (spousal killing, armed robbery, etc)

When you look at those three groupings, each has an underlying cause that is basically unrelated to the guns themselves.  It really seems as though almost anything you do through gun control is simply going to cause more hoops for legal gun owners to jump through while doing little to fix 1 and 2 above, and MAYBE alleviating number 3 a little bit. 

Why should we ignore accidents? Your gun is more likely to shoot you or someone in your household or someone benign (like a kid's friend, etc) than it is to successfully protect you from some home invader.

Just like the last 2 times you mentioned this, it's still a fake statistic, because it doesn't include incidents that the defender didn't fire.  Nor could it include the deterrent factor in states wherein odds are high that a random home has a firearm.  Both of these factors are provably real, although difficult to quantify.

[JLee]

What I don't see is anyone on the pro-gun side admitting that we have a massive problem in the country.

Because, frankly, I don't really believe we do.

Ignoring accidents and suicide, we have three rough classifications of issues:

1.  We have mentally ill or otherwise disturbed people that make infrequent but highly publicized mass shootings.

2.  We have lots of gang-related murders and collateral damage in underprivileged urban areas

3.  We have a small number of everything else (spousal killing, armed robbery, etc)

When you look at those three groupings, each has an underlying cause that is basically unrelated to the guns themselves.  It really seems as though almost anything you do through gun control is simply going to cause more hoops for legal gun owners to jump through while doing little to fix 1 and 2 above, and MAYBE alleviating number 3 a little bit.

Infrequent?  There have been 182 in the US in 2016.  6 since the incident we speak of here. 

https://www.massshootingtracker.org/data

If you look at the list, LOTS of the stuff counted in category 1 is really a better fit in category 2, just on a slightly larger scale.  The underlying cause is the same.

2/3 of those incidents happened in places with the heaviest restriction on firearms in the entire country (Chicago, NYC, and California)...  The Georgia incident was an armed robbery (police have not ruled out drugs as a factor).

[dycker1978]

What I don't see is anyone on the pro-gun side admitting that we have a massive problem in the country.

Because, frankly, I don't really believe we do.

Ignoring accidents and suicide, we have three rough classifications of issues:

1.  We have mentally ill or otherwise disturbed people that make infrequent but highly publicized mass shootings.

2.  We have lots of gang-related murders and collateral damage in underprivileged urban areas

3.  We have a small number of everything else (spousal killing, armed robbery, etc)

When you look at those three groupings, each has an underlying cause that is basically unrelated to the guns themselves.  It really seems as though almost anything you do through gun control is simply going to cause more hoops for legal gun owners to jump through while doing little to fix 1 and 2 above, and MAYBE alleviating number 3 a little bit.

Infrequent?  There have been 182 in the US in 2016.  6 since the incident we speak of here. 

https://www.massshootingtracker.org/data

If you look at the list, LOTS of the stuff counted in category 1 is really a better fit in category 2, just on a slightly larger scale.  The underlying cause is the same.

2/3 of those incidents happened in places with the heaviest restriction on firearms in the entire country (Chicago, NYC, and California)...  The Georgia incident was an armed robbery (police have not ruled out drugs as a factor).

I think you need to check your math or quit spread false information.  I just took a quick count of the 186 there were 32 in the locations that you listed, or 17%.  Not 2/3 as you suggest. 

As far of it being a bank robbery with drugs involved, who cares, several people were still shot.

[JLee]

What I don't see is anyone on the pro-gun side admitting that we have a massive problem in the country.

Because, frankly, I don't really believe we do.

Ignoring accidents and suicide, we have three rough classifications of issues:

1.  We have mentally ill or otherwise disturbed people that make infrequent but highly publicized mass shootings.

2.  We have lots of gang-related murders and collateral damage in underprivileged urban areas

3.  We have a small number of everything else (spousal killing, armed robbery, etc)

When you look at those three groupings, each has an underlying cause that is basically unrelated to the guns themselves.  It really seems as though almost anything you do through gun control is simply going to cause more hoops for legal gun owners to jump through while doing little to fix 1 and 2 above, and MAYBE alleviating number 3 a little bit.

Infrequent?  There have been 182 in the US in 2016. 6 since the incident we speak of here. 

https://www.massshootingtracker.org/data

If you look at the list, LOTS of the stuff counted in category 1 is really a better fit in category 2, just on a slightly larger scale.  The underlying cause is the same.

2/3 of those incidents happened in places with the heaviest restriction on firearms in the entire country (Chicago, NYC, and California)...  The Georgia incident was an armed robbery (police have not ruled out drugs as a factor).

I think you need to check your math or quit spread false information. I just took a quick count of the 186 there were 32 in the locations that you listed, or 17%.  Not 2/3 as you suggest. 

As far of it being a bank robbery with drugs involved, who cares, several people were still shot.

I was referring to the last six, as bolded above.  I would assume that my specification of cities would be an obvious correlation when looking at the link, but apparently it requires further clarification.

"Who cares", you say?  I thought we were having a discussion about what's behind these crimes - but apparently you just don't give a fuck.  Anyway, if you want to talk about the whole list, you're still wrong.

California: 18
Chicago: 15
18+15 = 33

Without including New York, we're already at 33 (higher than 32, as you have claimed). Kindly refer to your own post.  I'm also not looking at other tightly regulated states (MA, CT, NJ, Washington D.C. etc, which all have their share).

[Yaeger]

Didn't the FBI change their definition for what constitutes a 'mass shooting' back in 2013 that has inflated the numbers to make it seem more severe?

[JLee]

Didn't the FBI change their definition for what constitutes a 'mass shooting' back in 2013 that has inflated the numbers to make it seem more severe?

Yes. Any incident where four people are injured or killed now counts as a mass shooting (i.e. the home invasion where two people in the apartment were killed, another injured, and the intruder was killed counts as a mass shooting).

I found one in Arizona that was counted as a mass shooting because someone murdered a woman, police responded, the suspect shot and injured two police officers, and they killed him.  It's technically four dead/injured, but it's incredibly misleading to call that a mass shooting.

[Curbside Prophet]

Let me tell you why I have an AR-15.  From a tactical and defensive standpoint, it is highly effective for several reasons.  1) it's highly modular, 2) relatively inexpensive, 3) plethora of parts, 4) accurate and 5) it's ballistically suited for defense.  Look at the pictures in Orlando, what are most of the responding officers and especially SWAT carrying?  AR-15s.  They are going into a close quarter area to take out a single person where there are multiple innocent people around and their choice is the AR-15.  Why?  Because it's efficient at carrying out this purpose.  It's not a mass murdering weapon that sprays bullets everywhere.  It is this same efficiency that makes the AR-15 a good defensive choice in certain situations.

Would I use an AR-15 for hunting?  No.  That's not what it's made for.  In fact, many states do not allow you to use an AR-15 because .22 caliber is TOO SMALL for hunting.  That's right, the big scary gun of mass murder uses projectiles that are too small for medium game and often over penetrate LESS than handgun rounds.

You know what would take down a lot of targets indiscriminately?  A shotgun.  You know the universal self-defense weapon that even Joe Biden himself recommends.  A shotgun with 00 buckshot can shoot NINE little ball bearings EVERY TIME YOU PULL THE TRIGGER.  So in 10 shots you can potentially hit up to 90 people.  Can you do that with an AR-15?

My point is that banning a particular weapon is the wrong mindset.  You take away one, people will find another avenue.  There are literally hundreds of millions of AR-15s in the US and they are used in a fraction of fatalities.  A call for a ban is based on emotion, knee jerk reactions, and ignorance. 

I do believe we need to do a better job of keeping firearms out of the hands of felons, terrorists, etc.  But that is NOT what a gun ban accomplishes. 

[forummm]

To the anti-gunners who say the second amendment was only meant for muskets, not "semi-auto death machines"... those "muskets" were the most advanced firearms of the day. Trying to prevent Americans from owning AR-15s in 2016 is the equivalent of trying to prevent Americans from owning Kentucky Rifles in 1776.

Then clearly you believe that every man, woman, and child should have their own nuclear bombs, right? That's the most advanced weapon today.

Yes, if they could be used as discriminate weapons. However, they can't. The same argument can be made for landmines, automatic weapons, RPGs, bazookas, and other non-discriminate weaponry. The argument isn't because 'they're too dangerous', it's that they're non-selective.

Oh, I missed the "discriminate weapons" clause of the amendment.

But seriously, I think nearly everyone is for *some* gun control. Clearly you are for at least this level. Everyone has a line. The amendment doesn't mean everyone can have all the weapons they want to all the time.